News & Updates

The establishment of a PAC for a supreme court race may undermine the public financing program and reintroduce partisanship in judicial races, according to the court of appeals judge who is challenging an incumbent justice. The legislature adopted public financing and nonpartisan ballots for appellate court elections in 2004.

According to a statewide poll, 47 percent of voters favor retaining the four justices standing for retention in November, while 24 percent oppose their retention and 25 percent are undecided. Poll results also show little residual anger over the supreme court’s 2009 decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage, which resulted in the retention defeat of three justices in 2010.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that rejected a constitutional challenge to the state’s merit selection system. Opponents of the process argued that having five lawyers on the nine-member supreme court nominating commission, who are not popularly elected or appointed by an elected official, violates the Equal Protection Clause’s “one person, one vote” requirement.

The founders of Justice Not Politics, a 501(c)(4) organization formed to defend three justices against retention challenges in 2010, have established a 527 organization called Justice Not Politics Action to support Justice David Wiggins’ retention.

From three finalists named by the judicial nominating commission, Governor Daniels appointed county court judge Loretta Rush to the supreme court. This appointment leaves only two states (Idaho and Iowa) without a woman on the highest court.

In a recent press release, The Justice at Stake Campaign (JAS) suggests changing spending patterns may indicate a new phase of judicial election spending. JAS reports campaign spending is expected to fall in states dominated by a single political party, while spending is expected to spike in closely contested states.

Chief Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia warns that the federal judiciary will be at risk if Congress cannot reach a budget deal to prevent the implementation of $600 billion in automatic spending cuts. While civil trials before judges without juries would likely be unaffected, Chief Judge Sentelle states federal civil jury trials would possibly be suspended due to lack of funding to pay jurors and that budget cuts would affect the probation system and payment for public defenders.

In a recent editorial, The New York Times argues the current judicial selection method of electing high state court judges makes the judiciary more susceptible to influence by campaign donors. The New York Times suggests judges should be appointed through merit selection.

This year, Albany Law Review's annual State Constitutional Commentary Symposium features articles from IAALS Advisory Committee Members, including Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, and Meryl Chertoff.

A third of the Middle District of Pennsylvania's active court lies vacant due to the slow-moving process of judicial nominations. These vacancies significantly overburden the district, forcing citizens into long, drawn-out litigation. Rebecca Love Kourlis, Executive Director of IAALS, was interviewed about the situation.

The Diane Rehm Show discusses how judicial elections and appointment processes impact fairness in state courts. Some critics argue elections create political biases which weaken judicial impartiality. Others argue elections provide a way for the people to hold judges accountable and that the key to keeping courts fair and impartial is by educating the public.

At its fall convention, the state Democratic Party nominated three women to run for supreme court seats in November. Two of the three candidates are challenging incumbent justices, while the third is running for an open seat.

The Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona has prepared a short video that describes its process for selecting, evaluating, and retaining judges. Appellate courts and trial courts in the three largest counties use the O'Connor Judicial Selection Plan, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is featured in the video.

On August 30th, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania introduced a new Pilot Program designed to expedite civil cases filed in that district. Modeled loosely on the Northern District of California's program, the Pennsylvania District's Pilot Program is aimed at relatively simple civil cases, which do not require lengthy and expensive pretrial and trial proceedings.

Thirty-three percent of supreme, appellate, and superior court judges are women—an increase of eight percent since 2002. This figure comes close to matching the percentage of Connecticut Bar Association members who are women—34 percent.

A group of retired supreme court judges took the lead in the campaign opposing Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the governor to name an additional member of the commission that nominates potential judges and increase the number of nominees from three to four.

The state Republican Party chair called for voters to remove one of four supreme court justices standing for retention in November. Justice David Wiggins participated in the 2009 unanimous ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state, and three of his colleagues lost their bids for retention in 2010.

With Justice Patricio Serna’s retirement at the end of August, the state political parties are meeting to nominate candidates to run for the seat in November. Ordinarily, nominees would be chosen in partisan primary elections, but the vacancy is occurring after the June primaries.

The Missouri Bar’s judicial-review committee has released evaluations of the 51 judges standing for retention in November, recommending against the retention of Judge Dale W. Hood. Judge Hood also received a “not be retained” recommendation in 2008 but was retained by 54 percent of the vote.

Some senators are pushing to abolish the governor’s council, one of the chief responsibilities of which is to confirm judicial appointments. The council has come under fire recently for “unorthodox questioning” of judicial nominees and “inflammatory behavior” of some members.